Climate Change Report

#951
#951
MontyPython said:
True, but the numbers speak for themselves.View attachment 211169
Click to expand...

1) This graph that you provided take a very small snapshot of mans history on this earth. How can anyone prove that the "warming" has anything to do with mans presence? What percentage is this exactly? Why do people such as yourself discount the fact that the VAST majority of "greenhouse gasses" come from natural sources such as the ocean and swamps? Even with me saying that there is no way to measure any of this. It's all just a guess.

2) I have been sent many pictures from a friend of mine of weather reporting stations being placed near biased sources such as hot rooftops and asphalt. Many pictures. This falsely jacks up the average temperature records, so the data that you see in this chart is at least some what inaccurate.

3) I also have a friend who holds a PHD in atmospheric physics and meteorology. His post doctoral study consists of climate and seasonal forecasting. He laughs at people like you who are so easily scammed. He calls the climate models "worse than terrible". In fact, they are completely useless. They do not even take into account oscillations or atmosphere. They are garbage.

4) Both my friend and myself have followed and studied weather models for over two decades now. One of our biggest complaints is the unreliability of these models which have TONS more data of all types going into their generation constantly. These models are only accurate 2 or 3 days out, if that. The are only about 10 percent reliable 10 days out. So, how are we to trust a climate model that has FAR less data going into it, with some of it from biased sources? My bud also tells me that anyone can make any of these models say anything they want. So there is that. Why the hell would anyone with a brain think that we need to throw money at a non problem? Only those who perpetrate the scam and the gullible would want to start that massive money flow out of the working peoples pockets.

5) The 70's Ice age, holes in the ozone, and acid rain say hi!!! All faded away. Somehow though of course, we can suddenly control the climate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinsd, 82_VOL_83, Roustabout and 6 others
#953
#953
The Original Fade said:
Accurate weather data only goes back about 100-120 years, yet the earth has been in existence at least a few million years to most scientists estimates if not longer. So, how can anyone, climate scientist or not, argue that what we are experiencing now is abnormal based on a sample size of .00006%. In NO scientific field of study is a sample size this small given any credibility. It’s like drawing conclusions about the US census based on surveying a few people at the local coffee shop
Click to expand...

This is a pretty myopic view of what a climate scientist does, or how science works in general. They aren't arguing this is "abnormal" based solely on weather patterns in the past 100 years--a statistician could do that. A climate scientist will be interested in the factors which influence weather patterns as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy
#954
#954
norrislakevol said:
1) This graph that you provided take a very small snapshot of mans history on this earth. How can anyone prove that the "warming" has anything to do with mans presence? What percentage is this exactly? Why do people such as yourself discount the fact that the VAST majority of "greenhouse gasses" come from natural sources such as the ocean and swamps? Even with me saying that there is no way to measure any of this. It's all just a guess.

2) I have been sent many pictures from a friend of mine of weather reporting stations being placed near biased sources such as hot rooftops and asphalt. Many pictures. This falsely jacks up the average temperature records, so the data that you see in this chart is at least some what inaccurate.

3) I also have a friend who holds a PHD in atmospheric physics and meteorology. His post doctoral study consists of climate and seasonal forecasting. He laughs at people like you who are so easily scammed. He calls the climate models "worse than terrible". In fact, they are completely useless. They do not even take into account oscillations or atmosphere. They are garbage.

4) Both my friend and myself have followed and studied weather models for over two decades now. One of our biggest complaints is the unreliability of these models which have TONS more data of all types going into their generation constantly. These models are only accurate 2 or 3 days out, if that. The are only about 10 percent reliable 10 days out. So, how are we to trust a climate model that has FAR less data going into it, with some of it from biased sources? My bud also tells me that anyone can make any of these models say anything they want. So there is that. Why the hell would anyone with a brain think that we need to throw money at a non problem? Only those who perpetrate the scam and the gullible would want to start that massive money flow out of the working peoples pockets.

5) The 70's Ice age, holes in the ozone, and acid rain say hi!!! All faded away. Somehow though of course, we can suddenly control the climate.
Click to expand...

You have friends that take pictures of rooftop weather stations and they send them to you why?
 
#955
#955
MontyPython said:
Heh. Ain't no such thing as a free lunch. We all pay for it, just like we pay to have clean water and fresh air.

97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring. Maybe some naysayers think they know more than scientists. Mkay. But, to err on the side of caution makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

Last paragraph is just wrong
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and norrislakevol
#957
#957
Wafflestomper said:
This is a pretty myopic view of what a climate scientist does, or how science works in general. They aren't arguing this is "abnormal" based solely on weather patterns in the past 100 years--a statistician could do that. A climate scientist will be interested in the factors which influence weather patterns as well.
Click to expand...

The whole argument is that something is wrong with our climate, and man is most likely responsible. How can a climatologist draw that conclusion using such a small sample size? It’s a simple question
 
#958
#958
The Original Fade said:
The whole argument is that something is wrong with our climate, and man is most likely responsible. How can a climatologist draw that conclusion using such a small sample size? It’s a simple question
Click to expand...

I just told you how. By taking into account factors which affect climate and then coming up with a hypothesis that identifies the conclusion that best explains the data.
 
#959
#959
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment. “I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email. “I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.”
 
#960
#960
Wafflestomper said:
I just told you how. By taking into account factors which affect climate and then coming up with a hypothesis that identifies the conclusion that best explains the data.
Click to expand...
Seems to me they try to prove the hypothesis that the change is anthropomorphic.
 
#962
#962
Wafflestomper said:
Isn't that what you would expect if they believe that is the case?
Click to expand...
No. I expect a scientist, a legitimate one, to be objective in their method. A scientist shouldn't try to prove anything. The hypothesis should be supported or not based on objective data.
My concern is the climate scientists do not use objective data and any findings not supporting their hypothesis are negated.

Old farts like me have been down the gloom and doom road a few times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, DynaLo, LouderVol and 4 others
#963
#963
McDad said:
No. I expect a scientist, a legitimate one, to be objective in their method. A scientist shouldn't try to prove anything. The hypothesis should be supported or not based on objective data.
My concern is the climate scientists do not use objective data and any findings not supporting their hypothesis are negated.

Old farts like me have been down the gloom and doom road a few times.
Click to expand...

The original projections for death were early 80's somewhere around the exact time oil reserves would run dry and the population explosion would cause massive food/water shortages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, DynaLo, McDad and 2 others
#964
#964
McDad said:
No. I expect a scientist, a legitimate one, to be objective in their method. A scientist shouldn't try to prove anything. The hypothesis should be supported or not based on objective data.
My concern is the climate scientists do not use objective data and any findings not supporting their hypothesis are negated.

Old farts like me have been down the gloom and doom road a few times.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by "A scientist shouldn't try to prove anything;" it seems like the opposite is true. But presumably they believe their hypothesis is true because of objective data.
 
#969
#969
ajvol01 said:
Not if they’re legitimate scientists. The scientific method isn’t about finding evidence to support your best guess.
Click to expand...
Do you know what a hypothesis is and where it fits into the scientific method? Apparently not.
 
#973
#973
bcmbvol said:
He’s right. You try to DISPROVE your hypothesis.
Click to expand...
They try to rule out other factors which may support or reject their hypothesis. That's why all research is peer review. Feel free to review any research on climate change you desire and if something bugs you get back with us. Let me see should I trust the scientist or random skeptics without the background?
 
#975
#975
Mick said:
They try to rule out other factors which may support or reject their hypothesis. That's why all research is peer review. Feel free to review any research on climate change you desire and if something bugs you get back with us. Let me see should I trust the scientist or random skeptics without the background?
Click to expand...
Neither. There are too many variables to test. There is no lab vast enough to test accurately. The complex environmental equilibrium is also not testable on such a grand scale.

What we can say for sure is: there are instruments measuring increases in specific data points related to climate/atmosphere.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top